On 17/1/12 01:12, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> [Lea Verou:]
>> On 13/12/11 18:43, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I see it was resolved at TPAC that "CSS animations do not start or
>>> continue running on elements that are display:none or inside
>>> display:none elements"
>>> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0709.html>).
>>>
>>> However, transitions need to be considered too, and I couldn't find a
>>> similar issue reported on the list. And even if the transitions spec
>>> were to get some similar wording, it would be necessary to define in
>>> what order simultaneous style changes are considered to happen for
>>> this purpose. This also seems somewhat connected with the plans to
>>> make all properties interpolable.
>>>
>>> For instance, one might expect margin-left to transition in this case
>>> (and maybe especially so if 'display' were to be interpolated
>>> similarly to 'visibility'):
>>>
>>> #test { transition-duration: 0.5s; }
>>> #test.before { display: none; margin-left: 100px; } #test.after {
>>> display: block; margin-left: 0px; }
>>>
>>> However, we have already seen a case relying on the opposite, and thus
>>> looking buggy in Opera.
>>>
>> Why not handle all non-interpolable values like visibility and interpolate
>> them through a discrete step?
> What are 'all non-interpolable values like visibility'? We should be specific
> as to which cases we want to talk about as there are far more that just can't
> really be reasonably defined.
>
>
I was referring to every value for which interpolation isn't explicitly
defined. Roughly anything that's not a number, integer, percentage,
length, angle, time, color, image (in L4) or a functional notation with
parameters of these types. Basically, as a fallback kind of
interpolation definition, when there's nothing more specific. I never
got what was so special about visibility and it was the only property
that got that privileged treatment.
--
Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)